2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[jimrtex]

Question: say AL has two black seats drawn in 2020. In 2030, if the state drops to six seats, does it lose one of those black seats?

Possibly. If you lose a 7th district then the other districts have to be expanded by 17%.

Under the proposed demonstration maps the AL-7 and AL-2 are at 50.0x% BVAP (that is over 50%, but less than 50.1%. The surrounding districts are bleached to under 20% BVAP.

This suggests that as they went from 80% of the quota to 100% of quota they were running on fumes. They might have been around 60% at 80% of quota, and had to start adding 20% or 30% BVAP precincts just to stay barely above 17%.

So let's say that the fringe areas just outside are at 25%.

(quota x 50% + (quota/6 x 25%)) / quota x 7/6 = 43%.

But it will be worse because AL-2 and AL-7 will be short on population and need to be expanded even in a 7-district plan. (AL-7 was short about 53K in this cycle. As the legislature maintained the status quo, the BVAP declined from 60% to about 55%).

But it could be worse. In order for the demonstration plans to fit the two barely 50% BVAP districts in, they had to squeeze AL-1 across the state, south of the two two black districts. This includes water connectivity across Mobile Bay. To get enough population you are going to have to put Dothan and Mobile County in the same district.

So what happens if you extend it northward? It cuts directly into AL-2 and AL-7.

Or if you try to go around the eastern end, you are probably taking some black population. You can't include Macon County, and neither the Georgia or Mississippi legislature will look favorable at going through their states.

You could potentially sneak up through Montgomery, but them you going to have provide a corridor over the top to get to the eastern parts of the black belt.

If you add tentacles into Gadsden or Anniston or Talledega, or the Tennessee valley you are not being compact.

p.s. Did anyone notice that Huntsville is now the most populous city in Alabama? And but for that fact, and a couple hundred people, Montgomery came close to being the largest city and the capital.

[jimrtex]

If SCOTUS upholds the decision that most likely intimidates Louisiana Republicans into allowing a second black district too, which would be amazing.

Unlike AL, you can't draw two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's in LA, so no. Gingles does not trigger the drawing of a second black performing CD in LA.

Wrong. You can.

So it would appear as to the 50% element of the test, and we do have racially polarized voting, so that just leaves the compact element to litigate. 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

The demonstration districts had 50.0x% BVAP population (greater than 50% but less than 50.1% BVAP). The state notes that this requires inclusion of persons reporting two or more races, with one of them black.

They tried to make it look good by eliminating county splits except in Mobile, Montgomery, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa counties. I suspect you will see quite careful selection of precincts in those cities.

In addition the demonstration maps showed that AL-1 (Mobile to Dothan) is connected by water only. Maybe they can get an ancestor of David Farragut to run.

Given that they titrated the BVAP to get the desired result, can it really be argued that they did not subordinate other redistricting criteria to race?

Remember that the Alabama legislative district map was overturned because the legislature was attempting to maintain the BVAP and went to extraordinary of splitting of precincts to do so.

Note one of the cases cited only statutory violations and thus did not require a three judge panel, and the appeal has to go through the 11th Circuit, and not to the SCOTUS. This case was filed by the Marc Elias gang.

The other cases with a three-judge panel also heard the case, but ruled only on the statutory claims (the single judge was also a member of the three-judge panel).

[jimrtex]

Can someone post an actual map that has two 50% BVAP CD's with what they think minimizes erosity?

I revised mine a bit to get rid of the neighborhood in the NW corner of NO that is almost all white with about 20K people or so.

The "contest" here is to draw a map that is easiest* on the judicial eyes that has two 50% VAP black CD's. The idea is to maximize the odds thata court that matters would find that both CD's were "compact."

I think the odds are low that it is possible to  draw such a map that gets the odds into more than between one and two standard deviations from the mean on the losing side, with me the handicapper, but absent actual maps, it is all ultimately meaningless foreplay for me to handicap at all. At least in my opinion!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962



*Job one of course to get even half way to first base with the wooing of your affection being to lose Shreveport as being part of the same zone of compactness as Baton Rouge.

You can have a very clean map in Louisiana if you simply segregate the electorates. Both the four-district white map and the two-district black map are quite simple to draw.

[jimrtex]

I suppose I’m asking why, all else being equal (not factoring in SCOTUS taking things in a different direction), the precedent in Virginia which led to creating a second district doesn’t apply to what looks like a similar situation in Louisiana. Virginia didn’t require two 50% BVAP districts as a prerequisite to unpack the district and draw two performing districts.

Or put another way, are you arguing that hypothetically the current Supreme Court would have overturned the lower court decision in Virginia from some years ago because their views are different from the old court’s.

In Virginia the court ruling was that the VA-3 was a racial gerrymander because it hopped back and forth across the James River, as it stretched down from Richmond to pick up areas hither and yon in Hampton Roads. The district jumped north to take part of Newport News, then jumped back into the river to swim downstream to Hampton, even though the cities are connected by land with continuous residential settlement. It then skipped across to take Portsmouth and parts of Norfolk.

I'm not sure that a Gingles area can be drawn in Virginia. You can get up over 50% BVAP in Portsmouth, Norfolk, Hampton, Newport News, though this might require dividing all of them. But then you have to go up to Richmond to get enough population for a district, and that may stretch the district. Do you bypass Petersburg, and start cutting out areas in Richmond and Hampton Roads to not have excessive population.

In Virginia they were content to keep VA-3 since the DOJ would give preclearance. It was only after Section 3 was eliminated, effectively ending preclearance that people started bringing Section complaints. They could have before, but the State would have argued, truthfully, that they were simply trying to placate the DOJ.

You can not assign students to a high school on the basis of race. You can not use other measures that have the same effect, such as attendance boundaries that tended to match racial residential patterns. You might not even be able to use a computer program that minimized bus routes if the schools were sited based on race.

The same logic applies to congressional districts. If you were a map drawer, you would be interrogate/deposed as to whether your mapping software had a racial display option and whether you used it. There would also be questioning as to whether you used a quota, and whether you used unusual techniques such as splitting election precincts.

[jimrtex]

Sigh. If a state wants to go the proportionality route like Ohio apparently for the state legislature, then like Ohio the state should pass a statute. I was sharing my opinion about abuse of process as it were by activist judges. Given how hideous the Illinois CD map is, if Illinois has an initiative process, the citizens should rise up and try to copycat the Ohio law, and spend 50 million promoting it. That should keep the Dems busy for awhile. But also I don't think Illinois has the citizen initiative process.

They do, unfortunately it only applies to certain parts of the Legislative Article, and you must make procedural and structural changes.

If you require proportionality, you also have to change the size of the legislature. And you have to collect all the signatures before Mike Madigan will tell Lisa Madigan to oppose the initiative and to have the courts block it. Illinois does have a periodic referendum on a constitutional convention - but those opposed will claim that those wanting the convention want to outlaw private property and/or reimpose slavery.

[jimrtex]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

The Gingles test is not in the VRA.

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

[jimrtex]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs* going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.




*Oh my bad, there is no prong into Mobile. So it is the matter of the gerrymandered prong into black Jefferson County that pushes up the BVAP to 55% as a black pack (which excess 5% due to the extra erosity is not necessary to be black performing. I think that is an issue where the existing map has some vulnerability.

Existing map that is the subject of the litigation:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b1cfc3f6-27df-498d-a147-0664d75fea88

The 2011 AL-7 was underpopulated by 53K, and 60% BVAP (which likely increased during the decade, due to whites leaving black-majority areas). The map drawn by the 2021 legislature decreased it to 55%. In effect as you expand the district outward you have to take in whiter areas.

[jimrtex]

" As the court explained, the plaintiffs’ proposed plans “have nearly zero population deviation, in- clude only contiguous districts, include districts that are at least as geographically compact as those in [Alabama’s] Plan, respect traditional boundaries and subdivisions at least as much as [Alabama’s] Plan, protect important com- munities of interest, [and] protect incumbents where possi- ble.” App. 173."

The above is from the Kagan dissent and raises a new aspect of the elements of compactness to the effect that if the map enacted is more erose that the hypothetical map that generates the 50% minority districts triggering Gingles (two such districts here), then the map drawers basically estopped to play the  non compact card. That doesn't really make sense to me. The district hypothetically drawn as a 50% minority district as a potential  Gingles trigger CD, should be deemed compact or not first, and if it is, you draw two performing districts, and if not, then you can do whatever you want.

The Kagan approaches basically holds that anything is compact if the actual map drawn is less, and perhaps comes close to saying that anything is compact if what is drawn does not hew to neutral redistricting tools. And that means that Jefferson County should not be split. If Jefferson it is not split, it might still not be black performing,  if otherwise drawn to add Pubs outside the county, but in this instance, any district that has all of Jefferson will be at least  narrowly Dem.

Roberts without saying why, says he thinks the two CD's the plaintiffs drew were compact, but the law might need to change. The 5 justices granting the stay, offer no opinion one way or the other on compactness, and see no reason to assess the probabilities, and merely focus on their opinion that it is too late in the cycle to come up with new districts that potentially would last just for one election. Granted it is easier to find the disruption is just not worth it, when you think there is a strong chance the map will be upheld. It is easier to go avoid the disruption route is you think the map will end up being upheld as is, is at least say 35%, then if you think it is less than say 20% (Roberts in contrast perhaps thinking that it is no more than 50%, the usual starting point to deny a stay).

Anyway, we are getting a preview over the battle of what compact means which may be the key battle, or not, if the court wants more systemic changes rather than changes at the margins.

The plaintiffs experts used mathematical measures of compactness. One of them noted that one could "travel" throughout AL-1. As a lawyer you appreciate that you can't deceive the court, but that you can say things in a way that the judge or jury will infer the same thing. In this case, the travel would have to be by boat or swimming across Mobile Bay. He didn't mention that you could travel throughout any of the other districts.

Kagan's dissent said in essence that the the plaintiffs had proven their case before the trial court and there was no reason for a stay. She had prejudged the evidence.

The court majority couldn't come right out and say that the state had proved their case, so they chose a way that would allow them to review the case.

The 1990s district was drawn by a federal judge. If you compare to the 1980s map, it was probably a least change map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama's_congressional_districts

[jimrtex]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

[jimrtex]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

If you had racially segregated electorates then blacks in Huntsville, Alabama would have voting rights as well.

[jimrtex]

Here is a fair map. It does not split counties. It splits the Birmingham UCC, which is larger than a district. It keeps the Montgomery UCC whole.

The districts containing three of the largest cities are relatively compact: Huntsville, Birmingham, and Mobile. Montgomery is placed in the sparsely populated Black Belt.

Standard deviation 1.39%.

Two competitive seats, five Republican.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/5a8afdbd-4782-4836-8de5-949ad536975f

[jimrtex]

Here is a fair map. It does not split counties. It splits the Birmingham UCC, which is larger than a district. It keeps the Montgomery UCC whole.

The districts containing three of the largest cities are relatively compact: Huntsville, Birmingham, and Mobile. Montgomery is placed in the sparsely populated Black Belt.

Standard deviation 1.39%.

Two competitive seats, five Republican.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/5a8afdbd-4782-4836-8de5-949ad536975f